Direct Request (CEACR) - adopted 2025, published 114th ILC session (2026)

Freedom of Association and Protection of the Right to Organise Convention, 1948 (No. 87) - Spain (Ratification: 1977)

The Committee notes the observations of the Trade Union Confederation of Workers’ Commissions (CCOO) and the General Union of Workers (UGT), the Spanish Confederation of Employers’ Organizations (CEOE) and the Spanish Confederation of Small and Medium-Sized Enterprises (CEPYME), forwarded by the Government, and the comments by the Government on all these observations. The Committee also notes the additional observations submitted by the CCOO on 29 August 2025. The Committee notes that, in these observations, the CCOO alleges that Act No. 2/2025 of 4 July of the Region of Murcia eliminates the channels for institutional participation and the funding of the most representative trade unions in that region. The Committee requests the Government to provide its comments on the additional observations of the CCOO, providing, in particular, information on the scope of this Act and its effects on the guarantees established in the Convention.

Trade union rights and civil liberties. In its previous comments, the Committee noted the concerns expressed by the trade union organizations regarding Basic Act No. 4/2015 protecting public safety (LPSC) and section 557 ter of the Penal Code, also adopted in 2015. In order to verify that the application of the indeterminate legal concepts contained in this legislation do not limit the exercise of assembly and demonstration rights in relation to freedom of association, the Committee requested the Government to submit to social dialogue the issue of the application of these provisions and provide information on specific cases in which they have been applied in relation to trade union activities.

The Committee notes the Government’s indications that: (i) section 36.2 and 36.3 of the LPSC seek to protect the holding of assemblies and demonstrations by punishing only violent actions that cause a serious disturbance to public safety; (ii) the application of the LPSC is ultimately the responsibility of the administrative or judicial sanctioning authorities who, under the procedures that guarantee the presumption of innocence and the right of defence, specify the scope of the concepts included in the classified offences; (iii) Basic Act No. 4/2022 of 22 December repealed section 557 ter of the Penal Code, which punished the invasion or occupation of a home or establishment causing a significant disturbance of the public peace and its normal activity, replacing it with a new section 557 bis which, according to the Government, modifies the classification of the repealed section 557 ter and establishes a lighter prison sentence and fine compared to the previous provision; (iv) with regard to the application of the LPSC, the data submitted indicates that in 2022 and 2023, two and one penalties were imposed under section 36.2 of the LPSC, and 5,404 and 5,573 penalties were imposed under section 36.3, respectively; and, s to the application of section 559 ter of the Penal Code, reference is made to a ruling that excludes the application of that section, and to the fact that there is only one conviction for the offence provided for in section 557 ter of the Penal Code, without it being possible to specify whether it is related to trade union activities. The Committee nevertheless notes the observations of the trade union organizations, which state that: (i) they consider it necessary to amend the LPSC in order to avoid any risk of undue restrictions on trade union organizations’ freedom of assembly, expression and demonstration; (ii) the new section 557 bis of the Penal Code maintains the content of the repealed section 557 ter and, therefore, the indeterminate concepts that have been questioned continue to exist; (iii) the amendment of section 557 ter of the Penal Code was not submitted to social dialogue; (iv) recent rulings by the Supreme Court (la Suiza case, June 2024) show a tendency to criminally repress collective actions led by trade unions; and (v) the Government still does not provide data on the application of the LPSC or the new section 557 bis of the Penal Code.

The Committee notes with regret that it has not received any indication that the application of the LPSC or the adoption and application of the new section 557 bis of the Penal Code have been submitted to social dialogue processes, as requested in its previous comments. The Committee also notes with regret that, apart from references to the overall number of penalties imposed under section 36.2 and 36.3 of the LPSC and references to a judgment and conviction relating to section 557 bis of the Penal Code, no detailed information is provided to enable an assessment of the application in practice of these provisions and their possible impact on the exercise of trade union rights. In the light of the above, the Committee is bound to request the Government once again to: (i) submit to social dialogue the issue of the application of the LPSC and of section 557 ter of the Penal Code and its replacement section 557 bis,with a view to considering the measures that could be necessary to ensure the full exercise of civil liberties in relation to trade union rights; and (ii) provide further details on the specific cases in which the LPSC and the new section 557 bis of the Penal Code have been applied.

Article 3 of the Convention. Observations of the social partners on the right to strike. In its previous comments, in the light of the respective observations of the trade union organizations and the employers’ organizations, the Committee requested the Government to encourage tripartite social dialogue on the regulation of the right to strike in general, and on the definition of minimum services in particular, and to provide its comments on the allegations of the CCOO on the frequent failure by the government authorities to comply with the rules on minimum services. The Committee notes that the Government reports that the regulations governing the right to strike and minimum services have not been amended, but that there have been court rulings on these issues. The Government adds that a forum for dialogue has not been set up to address these issues but expresses its willingness to consider any initiatives for dialogue presented by the parties. The Committee also notes that, for their part, the CEOE and CEPYME observe that: (i) new legislation comprehensively regulating the right to strike would be desirable or, failing that, specific regulations on strikes in public services or strategic sectors; (ii) regulations on the right to strike should incorporate the requirement of protecting public order, the public interest and the rights of citizens in general; and (iii) the use of social dialogue and mechanisms for the autonomous settlement of labour disputes, during a strike, must be encouraged. Lastly, the Committee notes that the trade union organizations allege that: (i) the unilateral (without negotiation with the trade unions) and disproportionate determination of minimum services, as well as the practice of strike-breaking, unduly restrict the exercise of the right to strike; and (ii) the rules on minimum services continue to be violated by the government authorities.

While observing that the Government has not provided specific information on the trade union organizations’ allegations on the failure by the government authorities to comply with the rules on minimum services, the Committee notes the Government’s willingness to consider a dialogue on aspects of the right to strike that are of concern to employers’ and workers’ organizations, including the determination of minimum services. In the light of the above, the Committee reiterates its request to the Government to encourage effective tripartite dialogue on these issues and requests it to provide information on the trade union organizations’ allegations on the failure by the government authorities to comply with the rules on minimum services.